519 replies to this topic

[Safari Suit]

There is also the matter that even if 90% of the world's population think LTK is abysmal, they couldn't have legitimately formed that opinion before actually seeing it. OK, bad word of mouth could have sealed its fate after a while, but the "LTK was rubbish so nobody went to see it" theory doesn't work when dealing with the opening weekend.

[Professor Pi]

I remember a movie critic for a San Diego TV station saying, "Licence to Kill is the worst Bond film since On Her Majesty's Secret Service." That told me more about him than the movie!

[dogmanstar]

While I agree with Gravity to a certain extent, I recall in 89 mentioning to my boss that I was going to go see the new Bond movie and his response was "there is a new Bond movie out?". I also remember LTK being sold out at the theater I went to on opening day.

As I said earlier, I don't think it LTK's dissapointing box office is totally because nobody wanted to see the movie or the poor marketing - it was a combination of the two.

Yep, by '89 the hype of having a 'new' Bond had melted away. LTK was very poorly marketed and people were used to Bond--it wasn't an event any more to see a Bond film.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

There's a reason Bond films are traditionally released in the fall,

While I agree with much of your post, I think it's worth being careful about this assumption. From 79-89, Bonds had become summer releases in the UK and the US. I do believe that the switch(back) to fall/winter in '95 was a conscious effort to keep Bond out of the very competitive summer "tentpole movie" season. The decision has been the right one and I feel that switching back to the summer might not hurt ticket sales, but I don't see how it could improve box office.

That said, I still believe that LTK's anaemic numbers in the US were down to an almost non-existent ad-campaign, a competive market-place, and TD's failure to catch on. I like LTK, so the notion that's it's not a good film doesn't fly as a reason to me. Hey, nobody went, so how would they know?

I was always under the impression GE was slated for a summer release. I think I remember reading a press release saying the film was due for release in the summer of 95. I understood the reason for the winter opening was because Pinewood was unavailable, and Eon had to rebuild the old rolls royce (Leavesden) factory to make the film.

Edited by sthgilyadgnivileht, 13 January 2009 - 11:39 AM.

[plankattack]

I was always under the impression GE was slated for a summer release. I think I remember reading a press release saying the film was due for release in the summer of 95. I understood the reason for the winter opening was because Pinewood was unavailable, and Eon had to rebuild the old rolls royce (Leavesden) factory to make the film.

SthG, I wasn't aware of that, and that may well be the reason why GE was moved to later in the year. But I think it's noteworthy that the Bonds have now become an late autumn/winter release rather than attempting to mix it up with the other blockbusters in the summer, I do make the connection between that and the LTK experience. Once bitten, twice shy?

[Judo chop]

Bond was a dying organism. The series desperately needed to ‘evolve’. But instead of developing wings, or prehensile toes, or sentient thought and the ability to reason – extraordinary tools/abilities that would give the creature a chance to survive - it grew longer earlobes and died.

Anyone who knows me knows that I think Dalton had a great Bond in him, but that he was drowned in the rushing waters of formulaic tradition. LTK was a pathetic, last ditch effort to bring Bond to Dalton’s terms. The producers simply weren’t ready or willing to unplug from the past. To truly “reboot”.

Plus, there are all the other unfriendly forces about, working against Bond… bad marketing, tightening budget, dwindling audience attention span…

It was doomed probably any way you look at it. It would have been nice, though, to have gone down swinging.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

I was always under the impression GE was slated for a summer release. I think I remember reading a press release saying the film was due for release in the summer of 95. I understood the reason for the winter opening was because Pinewood was unavailable, and Eon had to rebuild the old rolls royce (Leavesden) factory to make the film.

SthG, I wasn't aware of that, and that may well be the reason why GE was moved to later in the year. But I think it's noteworthy that the Bonds have now become an late autumn/winter release rather than attempting to mix it up with the other blockbusters in the summer, I do make the connection between that and the LTK experience. Once bitten, twice shy?

Yes certainly agree I think a winter release has helped. I will try and dig out where I read that and quote the press release on this thread

[plankattack]

Bond was a dying organism. The series desperately needed to ‘evolve’. But instead of developing wings, or prehensile toes, or sentient thought and the ability to reason – extraordinary tools/abilities that would give the creature a chance to survive - it grew longer earlobes and died.

Anyone who knows me knows that I think Dalton had a great Bond in him, but that he was drowned in the rushing waters of formulaic tradition. LTK was a pathetic, last ditch effort to bring Bond to Dalton’s terms. The producers simply weren’t ready or willing to unplug from the past. To truly “reboot”.

Plus, there are all the other unfriendly forces about, working against Bond… bad marketing, tightening budget, dwindling audience attention span…

It was doomed probably any way you look at it. It would have been nice, though, to have gone down swinging.

I agree to a point. I like LTK. It was an "attempt" to push the envelope for Bond. But I'm well aware of it's weaknesses (unlike TWINE, which is my own personal Lawrence of Arabia....a classic, start to finish). But as a film it's undone by its inability to commit to doing things differently. It's a character-driven revenge-thriller, trapped within the confines of 70-89 EON family-style entertainment. Everytime something edgier threatens to appear, it's blunted by out-of-step humour or casting.

But I'm not sure that's the reason it flopped. If EON had gone all the way, it might have really bombed. Or it could have been a ground-breaking slice of the franchise's history. We'll never know, but if listening to some people moan about the current re-boot ("it's not a Bond-film etc), I suspect an out-and-out LTK would not have gone down well.

Shame, Dalton really did deserve better. It's hard enough defending Laz to outsiders, never mind TD as well!

[Judo chop]

But I'm not sure that's the reason it flopped. If EON had gone all the way, it might have really bombed. Or it could have been a ground-breaking slice of the franchise's history. We'll never know...

Sure it is. It's the reason, even if it's not entirely accurate to say it was LTK's fault.

But I agree... an out-and-out might have bombed. But what was, was certain to at least continue on the downward spiral of failure. And it's too bad a real attempt for change wasn't made b/c we'd have it now instead of what we got, and GE could still have come around to 'save' the rest of it.

[Safari Suit]

But I'm not sure that's the reason it flopped. If EON had gone all the way, it might have really bombed. Or it could have been a ground-breaking slice of the franchise's history. We'll never know...

Sure it is. It's the reason, even if it's not entirely accurate to say it was LTK's fault.

Would you say that if the film had explicitly promised audiences "No Q! No Gadgets! No Moneypenny! No Underground Bases!" and whatever else we can theorise audiences might have been tired of at that point the film would probably have been a hit?

[Judo chop]

But I'm not sure that's the reason it flopped. If EON had gone all the way, it might have really bombed. Or it could have been a ground-breaking slice of the franchise's history. We'll never know...

Sure it is. It's the reason, even if it's not entirely accurate to say it was LTK's fault.

Would you say that if the film had explicitly promised audiences "No Q! No Gadgets! No Moneypenny! No Underground Bases!" and whatever else we can theorise audiences might have been tired of at that point the film would probably have been a hit?

See my last paragraph above. For the record, I think new direction was the key change they needed to make, though ridding Dalton of 'ghettoblasters' and that total drip of a Moneypenny is certainly not a bad idea either.

[Revelator]

Bond was a dying organism. The series desperately needed to ‘evolve’... LTK was a pathetic, last ditch effort to bring Bond to Dalton’s terms. The producers simply weren’t ready or willing to unplug from the past. To truly “reboot”.

I don't see what was so "pathetic" about LTK trying to bring Bond to Dalton's terms, given that the film suits his strengths far more than TLD did, and did a pretty good job of bringing the character to Dalton's terms. Your argument rests on the false assumption that LTK was practically indistinct from, say, OP or AVTAK, when it actually represents a strong break from the later Moore years.
Nor do I see what sort of wisdom there would have been in a CR-style "reboot", which is more the result of teleological wish-thinking than anything else. Would audiences really have wanted that sort of thing in the summer of '89?
The Bonds have traditionally rebooted with more serious, down-to-earth films after they've hit it big with profitable spectacles--OHMSS after YOLT, FYEO after MR, CR after DAD. But the Bond series has usually recovered by pastiching itself and making films that remind people of the Bond brand. Instead of innovating, they try distilling the series' formula. So we get DAF after OHMSS, TSWLM after TMWTGG, and GE after LTK. It's just as arguable that if LTK had been a big, splashy TSWLM-type spectacle that it would have looked more appetizing next to Indiana Jones and Batman, and stood as a reminded of what Bond traditionally stood for at his best.

As it was, LTK tested better with audiences than any other previous Bond film, and did receive a share of good reviews (Ebert gave it 3 and a half stars--he'd given TLD only 2 and a half). But given the bad timing of its release and poor marketing, the odds were already against it. One other thing, which nobody seems to mention, especially those who like TLD and slag LTK--did TLD help turn people away from LTK? As CR showed with QoS, each Bond film helps make people excited about the last one, and to some extent builds on its success. For whatever reason, TLD didn't seem to cement Dalton in the public's mind. I wonder how many people had that film on their minds when they decided not to see LTK.

as a film it's undone by its inability to commit to doing things differently. It's a character-driven revenge-thriller, trapped within the confines of 70-89 EON family-style entertainment.

Exploding heads, flambed drug-lords, guys getting fed to sharks, women mercilessly whipped, and guys falling into shredders do not seem represent the confines of "family-style entertainment" (perhaps your family is different than mine). Nor do they seem particularly "trapped" by a family-style pattern. It's a film that earns its rating and it hardly needs to be more violent. Asking for an "edgier" film is just asking for an needless R rating.

Edited by Revelator, 13 January 2009 - 08:04 PM.

[plankattack]

as a film it's undone by its inability to commit to doing things differently. It's a character-driven revenge-thriller, trapped within the confines of 70-89 EON family-style entertainment.

Exploding heads, flambed drug-lords, guys getting fed to sharks, women mercilessly whipped, and guys falling into shredders do not seem represent the confines of "family-style entertainment" (perhaps your family is different than mine). Nor do they seem particularly "trapped" by a family-style pattern. It's a film that earns its rating and it hardly needs to be more violent. Asking for an "edgier" film is just asking for an needless R rating.

But my point was that these things exist alongside traditional Bond elements that "lighten" the tone (Q, Wayne Newton etc) and that's what unevens that tone. Compare with the two films since the reboot - the overall tone is quite even. Things are taken seriously so the film works within its context.

My point being isn't that LTK wasn't trying to be edgier (at least with the violence) but that it couldn't commit, which ultimately hurts the film. It didn't need to be more violent - it needed to be less flip, which instead only serves to underscore some of the gruesomeness which turned some people off. The lighter, traditional EON-tone of the time was there to smooth it out, but from a creative standpoint, I feel LTK would have been better served (if not received) if it wasn't there at all.

Agreed on TLD. I don't think neutrals left the cinema saying "I really like the new guy" after TLD. So you can't fault LTK for not getting them back two years later.

I believe that TD's short tenure was the series trying to figure out what it was, who it appealed to and how it appealed, in a rapidly changing marketplace.

[Judo chop]

I see that you’re a big supporter of LTK, Revelator. We’ve been on this seesaw before when I responded to you in another thread a few days ago. I’m not sure if you’ve seen my response or not.

In any case, it’s here where you say that LTK:

did a pretty good job of bringing the character to Dalton's terms.

where I do not agree. I do admit that LTK was an attempt to suit Dalton. I think it was a cheap looking, strings-attached, ultimately failed attempt. It’s an attempt made via the same ‘visionaries’ that brought us FYEO through TLD, and it shows. Heads explode, and then fishes wink. Felix is a cornball, MP is a sap, girls are bickering over Bond and Wayne Newton shows up. Not that there aren’t worthwhile events in the film too. As I’ve said, the problem for me is the overall vision. But if you love LTK and don’t even see a problem to begin with, then we’re never going to see eye to eye.

[Revelator]

But my point was that these things exist alongside traditional Bond elements that "lighten" the tone (Q, Wayne Newton etc) and that's what unevens that tone.

Rather than I think the better word is "balances" rather than "unevens." People are fond of bringing up Q and Wayne Newton, but I'm rather mystified at how these elements supposedly sabotage the film. Q's part is not played for laughs, and is actually rather moving in how it admits Q's affection for 007. And Wayne Newton was a natural choice to play an unctuous sleazejob preacher. But from the way people carry on, you'd think he's burst into all the dramatic scenes and begun singing lounge music. These elements are played for the most part soberly, but do add a less grim note to what might otherwise have been a tonally monotonous film. Had it "committed" its tone would have simply been more monotonous, rather than edgy but leavened with humor.

It’s an attempt made via the same ‘visionaries’ that brought us FYEO through TLD, and it shows. Heads explode, and then fishes wink...

Part of what I object in your denunciation is the misleading way it's expressed. Heads do not explode and then fishes wink. A head explodes and Sanchez makes a grimly funny wisecrack about money laundering. An hour or so later, after all the conflicts in the film have been resolved and the hero and heroine have kissed and the movie is about to end, a fish winks, and the gag is broad but saved until the film is pretty much over. It's not the equivalent of a double-taking pigeon in the middle of a chase sequence (now that's visionary filmmaking!), though you've tried to make it sound as such.

As I’ve said, the problem for me is the overall vision. But if you love LTK and don’t even see a problem to begin with, then we’re never going to see eye to eye.

I think the film is bit long, drags in the middle, and the Felix sub-plot isn't given quite enough screen-time in the end. Lupe and Felix's wife probably could have been recast. The M scenes are also a bit underbaked. It's by no means a a perfect movie, and at times it does feel slightly unBondian. But it has more vitality, drive and spark than anything from the Moore era, and is leaner piece of work than TLD. And I find most of the complaints against it to be unconvincing and flimsy. I would naturally have a hard time seeing eye to eye with someone who thought it cheap (really? those stunt sequences don't look like the $5 variety) and couldn't find anything of value to say about it. I find those sort of opinions about as hyperbolic as you seem to find mine.

Edited by Revelator, 14 January 2009 - 09:14 PM.

[Judo chop]

It’s an attempt made via the same ‘visionaries’ that brought us FYEO through TLD, and it shows. Heads explode, and then fishes wink...

Part of what I object in your denunciation is the misleading way it's expressed. Heads do not explode and then fishes wink. A head explodes and Sanchez makes a grimly funny wisecrack about money laundering. An hour or so later, after all the conflicts in the film have been resolved and the hero and heroine have kissed and the movie is about to end, a fish winks, and the gag is broad but saved until the film is pretty much over. It's not the equivalent of a double-taking pigeon in the middle of a chase sequence (now that's visionary filmmaking!), though you've tried to make it sound as such.

I realize the sequence of the events. I wasn’t trying to place them together and I’m not sure what effect that would have if I had been. LTK is ultra-violent for a Bond film, (not that that equates to quality in any way), and yet it still can’t let go of the nonsense. Consistency is just one problem LTK has.

As I’ve said, the problem for me is the overall vision. But if you love LTK and don’t even see a problem to begin with, then we’re never going to see eye to eye.

I think the film is bit long, drags in the middle, and the Felix sub-plot isn't given quite enough screen-time in the end. Lupe and Felix's wife probably could have been recast. The M scenes are also a bit underbaked. It's by no means a a perfect movie, and at times it does feel slightly unBondian. But it has more vitality, drive and spark than anything from the Moore era, and is leaner piece of work than TLD. And I find most of the complaints against it to be unconvincing and flimsy. I would naturally have a hard time seeing eye to eye with someone who thought it cheap (really? those stunt sequences don't look like the $5 variety) and couldn't find anything of value to say about it. I find those sort of opinions about as hyperbolic as you seem to find mine.

I said in my previous post (and our earlier conversation) that the film is not without some good qualities. I am not saying I cannot “find anything of value to say about it”. The cash on plane sequence is great. The action, at some points, is more crisp. But ‘cheap’, I will still call it. Miami is miserably shot. The bar fight is A-Team quality and every bit as dull as the worst of the Moore era. The scene that takes place after Bond’s attempt to kill Sanchez is guilty as well. Aside from Dalton, Dave and Del Toro, everyone should have been recast. In the travelogue dept., LTK doesn’t even register.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

I believe that TD's short tenure was the series trying to figure out what it was, who it appealed to and how it appealed, in a rapidly changing marketplace.

I think that is right.

I also very much agree with Judo chop about the casting. Debbie McWilliams was sorely missed, as TLD was very well cast, and LTK was full of actors who don't really seem to be enjoying it at all (although I think Anthony Zerbe and Christopher Neame also did a good job IMO). I do think the film looks cheap in parts (although it probably didn't look so cheap in '89), but I guess thats because it was really, because the money just wasn't there.
I have no problem with the winking fish. I see it as a kind of all's well that ends well signal after what was, in Bond film terms anyway, a much more grim and gritty story.

[plankattack]

But it has more vitality, drive and spark than anything from the Moore era, and is leaner piece of work than TLD.

This is very true. I like LTK a lot more than TLD. I find it a very re-watchable, consistently exciting, entry in the series. It is light years away from say, OP, in the same way that CR is light years away from DAD. I do find it sad that LTK doesn't get the love now that I feel it should, and it's even sadder that it didn't get any love at the time.

I do feel it has weaknesses, as mentioned in previous posts, and I still believe that those weaknesses were a reflection of a creative team at a cross-roads, caught between a new road, but still feeling allegiance to the passengers that had come this far. Contrast with the latest re-boot - right from the start the company-line prepared the audience for what they were going to get "No Q, no Moneypenny. Don't worry though, all the elements are there, just turned around etc (to loosely paraphrase DC's quotes of the time). This is honest adaptation of the book etc etc."

I'm not convinced that the violence of LTK turned off the general audience - I think what threw them is that they weren't expecting it. Thus word of mouth, which was going to be vital considering the lack of a traditional marketing campaign, combined with TD's lack of star-appeal (the 80s were star vehicles too, a major change - Gibson! Willis! Arnold! etc) led to a downturn in LTK's box-office.

I do think it's a very good film - an argument I'll have with anyone. But as far as how successful it was, the numbers, the intangibles and events not related to the film itself, make the most compelling case for it not doing well.

[Turn]

But my point was that these things exist alongside traditional Bond elements that "lighten" the tone (Q, Wayne Newton etc) and that's what unevens that tone.

Rather than I think the better word is "balances" rather than "unevens." People are fond of bringing up Q and Wayne Newton, but I'm rather mystified at how these elements supposedly sabotage the film. Q's part is not played for laughs, and is actually rather moving in how it admits Q's affection for 007. And Wayne Newton was a natural choice to play an unctuous sleazejob preacher. But from the way people carry on, you'd think he's burst into all the dramatic scenes and begun singing lounge music. These elements are played for the most part soberly, but do add a less grim note to what might otherwise have been a tonally monotonous film. Had it "committed" its tone would have simply been more monotonous, rather than edgy but leavened with humor.

I agree. With Wayne Newton's appearance, it's more of a surpise "Hey, that's Wayne Newton" that's actually rather amusing, unlike the distraction of Madonna's cameo in DAD. Newton does a far better job in his role than Madonna does.

The Q appearance does't bother me either, really. It goes beyond just having him show up in the field to equip Bond. It was nice to have him play up against the ultra serious Dalton. It is the only time I got the impression there was real affection between the characters, more so than the "official" retirement of Q in TWINE, which felt a bit artificial.

In comparing uneven tones between the humor and seriousness, I'd point to AVTAK and TWINE as the worst offenders. AVTAK features some particularly brutal deaths, which even Roger Moore has admitted to being turned off by. Yet we see slapstick firetruck chases with Keystone Cops hijinks followed by cold-blooded murders of miners and previously interesting characters like Gen. Gogol looking like dolts. That's a wildly uneven tone.

TWINE is also bad partly because it forces Zukovsky into becoming a figure of amusement, awkwardly inserted into a supposedly serious plot.

In addition, the action in TWINE is uninspired and often doesn't make sense, like where the Parahawks come from, the way they attack and the by-the-numbers feel, and the attack on the caviar factory.

It's ironic in light of all the complaints about how the action in QoS is shot in comparison to TWINE. At least I got an adrenaline rush out of it. Much of TWINE's action is in slow motion.

[Double-Oh Agent]

As it was, LTK tested better with audiences than any other previous Bond film, and did receive a share of good reviews (Ebert gave it 3 and a half stars--he'd given TLD only 2 and a half). But given the bad timing of its release and poor marketing, the odds were already against it. One other thing, which nobody seems to mention, especially those who like TLD and slag LTK--did TLD help turn people away from LTK? As CR showed with QoS, each Bond film helps make people excited about the last one, and to some extent builds on its success. For whatever reason, TLD didn't seem to cement Dalton in the public's mind. I wonder how many people had that film on their minds when they decided not to see LTK.

Good points. I'd forgotten about that super-positive testing LTK got.

From what I recall, most people tended to like The Living Daylights but weren't completely sold on Timothy Dalton (i.e. thought he was "okay" as Bond but was not in the league of Sean Connery or Roger Moore). So, combined with the lack of publicity Licence To Kill got in the summer of '89 with all the stiff competition featuring big-name stars, maybe it shouldn't be that surprising that the semi-unknown Dalton ended up failing to strike a chord with the movie-going public.

And speaking of how each Bond film builds on the success of the previous one, I'll be very curious to see how Bond 23 does in the wake of the highly controversial Quantum Of Solace. Personally, I expect it will approach, but ultimately fall short of, its predecessor regardless of how good it actually winds up being.

I said in my previous post (and our earlier conversation) that the film is not without some good qualities. I am not saying I cannot “find anything of value to say about it”. The cash on plane sequence is great. The action, at some points, is more crisp. But ‘cheap’, I will still call it. Miami is miserably shot. The bar fight is A-Team quality and every bit as dull as the worst of the Moore era. The scene that takes place after Bond’s attempt to kill Sanchez is guilty as well. Aside from Dalton, Dave and Del Toro, everyone should have been recast. In the travelogue dept., LTK doesn’t even register.

All the stunts are great especially the PTS, the Wavekrest escape, and the tanker truck finale. The bar fight scene, however, is--to put it mildly--underwhelming. It's very derivative and yes, I will go along with the A-Team analogy. It's about the biggest disappointment of the film for me.

But I don't have a problem with the casting at all. Robert Davi is absolutely fantastic as Franz Sanchez--easily one of the best in villains in the series, if not THE best. Carey Lowell is great as a tough Bond girl who is very capable but not "Bond's equal". Anthony Zerbe and Wayne Newton are suitably slimy and Benicio Del Toro, as you said, is great. And it is very nice to see David Hedison--the best Felix Leiter--back. The only acting problem I have is with Talisa Soto who could have been better. She does look good though, so it's not a deal breaker for me.

But it has more vitality, drive and spark than anything from the Moore era, and is leaner piece of work than TLD.

This is very true. I like LTK a lot more than TLD. I find it a very re-watchable, consistently exciting, entry in the series. It is light years away from say, OP, in the same way that CR is light years away from DAD. I do find it sad that LTK doesn't get the love now that I feel it should, and it's even sadder that it didn't get any love at the time.

I do feel it has weaknesses, as mentioned in previous posts, and I still believe that those weaknesses were a reflection of a creative team at a cross-roads, caught between a new road, but still feeling allegiance to the passengers that had come this far. Contrast with the latest re-boot - right from the start the company-line prepared the audience for what they were going to get "No Q, no Moneypenny. Don't worry though, all the elements are there, just turned around etc (to loosely paraphrase DC's quotes of the time). This is honest adaptation of the book etc etc."

I'm not convinced that the violence of LTK turned off the general audience - I think what threw them is that they weren't expecting it. Thus word of mouth, which was going to be vital considering the lack of a traditional marketing campaign, combined with TD's lack of star-appeal (the 80s were star vehicles too, a major change - Gibson! Willis! Arnold! etc) led to a downturn in LTK's box-office.

I do think it's a very good film - an argument I'll have with anyone. But as far as how successful it was, the numbers, the intangibles and events not related to the film itself, make the most compelling case for it not doing well.

I completely agree.

[byline]

Miami is miserably shot. The bar fight is A-Team quality and every bit as dull as the worst of the Moore era. The scene that takes place after Bond’s attempt to kill Sanchez is guilty as well. Aside from Dalton, Dave and Del Toro, everyone should have been recast. In the travelogue dept., LTK doesn’t even register.

I agree (and this is coming from someone who loves Dalton's all-too-brief turn as Bond). Something my husband (the original Bond fan in this family) has said was that one of the things he's always loved about Bond films is that they had a travelogue aspect to them; in other words, they took him to places in the world he'd never gone except in books. And they were so beautifully filmed that they sparked his imagination, made him admire Bond for having the means to travel to those exotic locales, and made him yearn to could go there, too.

In that regard, "Licence to Kill" founders. I just never got the sense that they went anywhere special (I had the same problem, and it was one of many, with "Diamonds Are Forever"). If the desire was to create a grittier, not-so-lush frame for the film, then there are ways to go about it without letting it look cheap. "Quantum of Solace" visits some pretty ratty-looking places, yet I never felt that setting those scenes there cheapened the film. Somehow, I just never got past that with "Licence to Kill" and its Mexican locations subbing for someplace else. And that's not a complaint about Mexico. It has many extraordinarily beautiful locations that could have been used to greater advantage in this film, but weren't.

I also agree with you on the casting. Especially David Hedison returning as Leiter. It was just a bad idea on so many fronts. I could have bought it all had Hedison done a better job of acting, but it just feels so . . . well, TV, to me. I never became emotionally invested in Bond's feelings for this character because Leiter never really became a character I could believe. The only reason I cared at all was because Dalton was so good at making me care. But that responsibility should not have been solely on Dalton's shoulders. As a lynchpin for the revenge angle of this story, Leiter and Della only half-worked for me because the actors -- and, to some extent, the writing of these characters -- didn't pull me into the scenes they were in, and their tragic circumstances didn't really resonate with me the way they should have.

Edited by byline, 18 January 2009 - 11:00 PM.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Is it time we should have some consensus and vote (unless there has already been one a similar thread about LTK) on the issues that seem to come up in this thread??????

1) Do you like LTK? Yes or No?

2) Do you agree that LTK is a good film and had genuine mitigating circumstances as submitted in this thread for its low box office performance? Yes or No?

3) Do you think the mitigation is a load of crap and excuses for what was actually a poor and uninspired entry for the series. Yes or No?

4) Are you one of those who can't answer the above questions because you can't make your mind up about what you really think about this film plus all the arguments for and against it? Yes or No?

[byline]

Is it time we should have some consensus and vote (unless there has already been one a similar thread about LTK) on the issues that seem to come up in this thread??????

1) Do you like LTK? Yes or No?

2) Do you agree that LTK is a good film and had genuine mitigating circumstances as submitted in this thread for its low box office performance? Yes or No?

3) Do you think the mitigation is a load of crap and excuses for what was actually a poor and uninspired entry for the series. Yes or No?

4) Are you one of those who can't answer the above questions because you can't make your mind up about what you really think about this film plus all the arguments for and against it? Yes or No?

I'm probably "Yes" to No. 4, which pretty much negates any opinions I might have to offer about Nos. 1-3.

[Judo chop]

Feeling spurred on by byline’s support, I will also add that Q’s involvement in LTK, though groundbreaking in concept, is sadly another failed attempt. Glen had absolutely no idea how to make Q’s flying-in-the-face-of-protocol support of Bond at all interesting. He rests on tradition and the audience’s pre-established love for Desmond’s Q to do all the work for him.

When Q appears on the scene, without his lab techies and seemingly without MI6 permission, it should have been an moment in the film and in Bond history. Instead, it feels mostly like just another Q appearance, hardly different from SWLM’s or MR’s.

Bond’s defection is the major theme of the film and is undermined by an irritating Felix and an overall lack of awareness throughout the narrative of the film. (If there ever was a time for multiple scenes featuring M barking “FIND BOND!!”, it’s in LTK when Bond has truly gone AWOL!) Because of this deficiency coupled with lacking direction at the point where Bond receives unauthorized, in-the-field assistance from Q, the situation feels nowhere near as precarious as it should.

1) Do you like LTK? Yes or No?

Yes.

2) Do you agree that LTK is a good film and had genuine mitigating circumstances as submitted in this thread for its low box office performance? Yes or No?

Yes and No. There are certainly mitigating circumstances involved, but the film is still a major problem and didn't do itself any favors (though it feebly tried).

3) Do you think the mitigation is a load of crap and excuses for what was actually a poor and uninspired entry for the series. Yes or No?

See #2.

4) Are you one of those who can't answer the above questions because you can't make your mind up about what you really think about this film plus all the arguments for and against it? Yes or No?

No. I see and agree with most of the arguments for and against. The 'againsts' simply outweigh the 'fors'.

[Safari Suit]

1) Do you like LTK? Yes or No?

Very much so.

2) Do you agree that LTK is a good film and had genuine mitigating circumstances as submitted in this thread for its low box office performance? Yes or No?

I guess so. I don't think you can ever narrow the reasons a film fails down to one key factor like poor marketing (subjective), the film being so bad that the genral public didn't want to see it (also subjective) or competition.

3) Do you think the mitigation is a load of crap and excuses for what was actually a poor and uninspired entry for the series. Yes or No?

I think some of it may just be excuses to be honest, but I don't think it's a "a poor and uninspired entry for the series".

[dee-bee-five]

1) Do you like LTK? Yes or No?

Very much so.

2) Do you agree that LTK is a good film and had genuine mitigating circumstances as submitted in this thread for its low box office performance? Yes or No?

It's an excellent film, better than its immediate predecessor in my book. Since I don't accept it flopped, it doesn't require mitigation.

3) Do you think the mitigation is a load of crap and excuses for what was actually a poor and uninspired entry for the series. Yes or No?

I refer you to my answers above.

4) Are you one of those who can't answer the above questions because you can't make your mind up about what you really think about this film plus all the arguments for and against it? Yes or No?

No

[Jim]

1) Do you like LTK? Yes or No?

No. I loathe it.

2) Do you agree that LTK is a good film and had genuine mitigating circumstances as submitted in this thread for its low box office performance? Yes or No?

No. It is a mediocre idea poorly executed.

3) Do you think the mitigation is a load of crap and excuses for what was actually a poor and uninspired entry for the series. Yes or No?

You bet your bippy, honeypie.

4) Are you one of those who can't answer the above questions because you can't make your mind up about what you really think about this film plus all the arguments for and against it? Yes or No?

No. Take it outside and shoot it in the back of the head. Then bury it shallow so the feral beasts can gnaw its face off.

[plankattack]

Yes, yes, no, no.

But I'm well aware of its weaknesses - I can just see past them to like the film (as I do with TWINE!!!!). And while I think it's a good film, it's not a great film, and that's the only thing that would have saved it from the box office fate that it got.

And I really hate to say this (but I will nonetheless), it's strength (TD) is also of the major weaknesses when it comes to the notion that it didn't do that well. TD wasn't a film star and didn't catch on in. I'm not happy about that (I thought TD was great, and greater, in two outings) but go up to the average punter and he has Laz status, fair or not.

[HH007]

1) Do you like LTK? Yes or No?

No. I loathe it.

2) Do you agree that LTK is a good film and had genuine mitigating circumstances as submitted in this thread for its low box office performance? Yes or No?

No. It is a mediocre idea poorly executed.

3) Do you think the mitigation is a load of crap and excuses for what was actually a poor and uninspired entry for the series. Yes or No?

You bet your bippy, honeypie.

4) Are you one of those who can't answer the above questions because you can't make your mind up about what you really think about this film plus all the arguments for and against it? Yes or No?

No. Take it outside and shoot it in the back of the head. Then bury it shallow so the feral beasts can gnaw its face off.

So what are you trying to say...?

Are you implying you didn't like it...?

[Mr. Blofeld]

I wish del Toro had been featured more in the film; he could've been the drug lord, with Robert Davi as his lackey!